Plus [the tariff] saves thousands of jobs who can afford to purchase and go out and eat. These people are real workers. Not some people who just throw their opinions or Wall Street Looters or big cheaters as in case of some CEOs.

It is true that some jobs are ‘saved’. But that is only half the story: many jobs are lost, too. Tariffs do not create wealth. They transfer it. Tariffs transfer wealth from consumers to producers and the government (for a graphical representation, see my blog post here). Unlike free trade, no new wealth is created (in fact, tariffs cause wealth to disappear!). The wealth is merely transferred from the consumers and their spending habits to the producers and their spending habits. Therefore, a nation cannot, though tariffs and artificial scarcity, create wealth; it cannot tax itself into prosperity. It can merely redistribute wealth.

What’s interesting about this is, until very recently, the same people arguing for tariffs now understood this. They decry welfare and high corporate taxes for the exact same reason I outlined above for opposing tariffs. I find the hypocrisy nauseating.

If the case for free trade is unassailable. And it is. The Canadians will now stop this activity which infringes on free trade rights. Free trade for all will work, free trade for many while specifically excluding some is wrong. Free trade for ALL!

Taxes cannot create wealth? Taxes created the interstate highway system, which created/faciltated entire billions upon billions of industry. NASA, completely tax funded has been the most successful organization in human history as far as generating wealth (think of the computer industry alone that NASA spawned, not to mention engineering advancement). Dude this blog title doesn’t pass the laugh test.

The taxes to pay for the interstate highway system merely transferred wealth from taxpayers to those who were politically connected enough to get the projects for their construction companies and, of course, the politicians themselves. Roads were already in place. People were building roads long before government got involved.

NASA is not the most successful organization in human history unless, of course, you forget its many failures and massive overspending. The taxes used to fund NASA merely transferred wealth from taxpayers to those who got to work for NASA and those who enjoyed contracts with NASA. Oh, and don’t forget the politicians who got great contributions from those companies successfully getting contracts with NASA.

You are confused. Government only paid the money it took from others. It did not develop computers or advance engineering. It paid individuals who did. And, computers and engineering were developed long before the US government paid people to come up with ideas to try to get a man on the moon.

Your politically correct, though economically wrong, views did not pass the laugh test.

All of the inns, restaurants, and shops that sprang up from the highway system were private and were not available before taxes were spent to build more roads. Your idiotic attempts to make a point fly in the face of all empirical evidence. Also to call me politically correct for what, what did I say jackass that was PC? You are having a conversation with yourself. Don’t like taxes, hate the government? Get the fuck out of my country then, go to east Africa or the multitude of other places that have no governments and no regulation. Have fun with that bitch, anti-PC enough for you dumbass?

And, no roads were built before government? Of course there were. Pretending that they would not have been is disingenuous at best.

Ah, the name-calling tell of cognitive dissonance. And, btw, the country was founded on the principles of limited government and liberty. Perhaps you ought to go to Somalia, Afghanistan, North Korea, Venezuela, or Zimbabwe to really experience the failures of socialism.

The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all human concerns the best and still maximise profit is juvenile. It’s a juvenile notion, but if you still want to try, go ahead, but you’ll have to get out of my country.

This is what I can’t stand about you libertarians and free market purists or whatever term you call yourself. Yes, capitalism is a remarkable engine for producing wealth. It’s a great tool to have in your toolbox if you’re trying to build a society and have that society advance. You wouldn’t want to go forward at this point without it (I remember the 80’s and remember how a state run economy cannot compete with ours, that argument is over in my mind). But it’s not a TOTAL AND COMPLETE blueprint for how to build a just society. There are other metrics to the human experience besides profit.

The primary weakness of you fools is that you so easily become unreasonably ideological and unmoored from reality. Libertarians or again, whatever you call yourselves, often act like the communists you hate so much, possessing contempt for tradition, and are convinced that logic on paper can answer all the important questions about the human experience. You are dismissive of history and cultural norms, self-possessed with this purifying instinct that makes you all to ready to pull down institutions you fail to recognize are vital to the integrity of the society that you yourself operate in. Most of all, you idiots reflexively defend anything that is said or done purely on the basis that is represents a free choice (free will is an illusion by the way). Therefore, you often ignore or dismiss the critical component of a civil society: judgment.

Let me provide you with a few clues from the science of economics as to why you are wrong:

1. Environmental concerns – The Tragedy of the Common. See the Soviet Union and the former communist block nations for the worst environmental issues. Oh, and don’t forget China.

2. Racial divides – You mean those sanctioned by government. Perhaps if government did not cater to special interest groups throughout its long history, then there would be fewer racial divides. After all, once you say government confers rights to individuals, will it be long before people are divided by race, class, religion, etc.? The history of government shows that government is the problem, not the solution.

3. Education – You got to love the job government is doing with public education. It clearly favors the wealthy and disadvantages the poor.

4. The economy changes – People change, thus the economy changes. I would get used to changes.

5. Leaving the country – The country was founded on the principles of liberty and limited government. So when are you leaving? I hear Venezuela is a worker’s paradise.

6. Capitalism is a remarkable engine for producing wealth. – Yes, it is. I am pleased to see you get one right.

7. There are other metrics to the human experience besides profit. – Yes, there are. And, your statement reveals that you do not understand economics.

8. [Libertarians] possess contempt for tradition. – Nope. Libertarians love the traditions of country. See the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. If anything, “progressives” hate tradition because they want very few limits on government power.

9. [Libertarians] often ignore or dismiss the critical component of a civil society: judgment. – Ah, I see. You don’t know much about your own country’s history or libertarianism. I suggest that you read “Libertarianism: A Primer” by David Boaz.

10. The name calling and hatred in your comments. – You should not do these things. People will dismiss your views as unworthy for consideration when you act in an unworthy and angry manner.

Communist Russia and China do not have capitalist markets. The fact that you don’t understand that says everything about your knowledge of basic economics. I said the idea that a capitalist market would heed all such concerns and still maximize profit is juvenile. Read again, reallllllllllll slow so you understand.

Yes the country was founded on principles and then we amended those principles. It sounds like you have beef with the Amendments, income tax and such. Again, don’t like it? Get the fuck out. You don’t see shit, all you see is logic on paper solving every problem, and you utterly fail to see how this makes you so similar o Venezuela and communism. Hahahaha comedy indeed.

Even true communistic systems, like the old Soviet Union, have black markets, which are the most capitalist markets in the world. BTW, you are quite a bit out of date. Russia has renounced communism, and China has freed up some of its markets.

Individuals pursuing their own self interest by providing goods and services to others voluntarily work so much better than government-imposed diktats. See the government’s own EPA turning a Colorado river a toxic orange. And, look at the government’s police forces racially profiling black people.

Uh, you cannot amend principles. But, then your name calling reveals a lack of a moral compass. The amendments to the US Constitution did not amend the principles of the founding or the Declaration of Independence. The goal is limited government and liberty. It you do not like it then perhaps you would enjoy North Korea. I hear they have a worker’s paradise too.

Ah, I see you are continuing your disparaging statement “tell” of cognitive dissonance. That is not comedy, even though rational people are laughing at you.

You can amend the constitution dumbass, like I said. And those amendments completely reversed many of the founding principles. The framers never would have imagined an income tax until Napoleon started it, but here we are! So with those Amendments the goals have changed to a stronger, more funded, government. Yer dern’t like it, well, you can git out!!!!!! I for one want NASA funded more with taxpayer and private dollars. But I also want spending severely cut, starting with the drug war and the military. The difference between us is that I can hold two thoughts in my head at once. You rigid, anarchist/libertarian asshats are no different than talking with communists, you can’t hold any thought outside of your ideology you are CONVINCED solves everything. Rational people laughing at me? The majority of this country supports our government to the degree I am talking, your idiot candidates don’t even know what a Syria is, THAT was a great laugh most of the country enjoyed at you and all your anarchist ilks expense. Seriously, go live the pirate life in Somalia and be freeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. You won’t cause you need the protection from my government you little bitch.

The taxes also meant that there was less investment that could be made by those from whom they were taken. What is your evidence that NASA produced more wealth than what taxpayers would have done with the money if it were still theirs to spend? Are you suggesting that the computer industry would not have developed absent NASA?

The leap towards innovation didn’t start until we had an enemy to compete against (Russia) and an agency dedicated purely to innovation. Show me how capitalism, by itself, would have done this. From what I have seen of a total free market monopolies stifle (violently if necessary) progress, innovation, and new markets because it hurts their bottom line. That is why capitalism needs to be tied to the social compact that is our constitution. This has produced the greatest country and greatest economy ever seen. All the proof I need and if all you libertarians and anarchists don’t like it, LEAVE. Get out of my country, go live somewhere where there is no government, no regulations, and everyone has to get by on their own. There are plenty of places where that exists, have fun with that.

You do not understand basic economics. By definition, free markets do not involve monopolies. Monopolies are created only by government.

“the social compact that is our constitution”

The Constitution is not a social compact. The Constitution is a document that describes the form of the federal government with limits on that federal government including separation of powers, federalism, special limits on powers, etc.

“This has produced the greatest country and greatest economy ever seen.”

No. Freer markets and freer trade have produced the greatest country and economy that the world has seen up till now.

” Get out of my country,”

No. It is our country. The principles of its founding were liberty and limited government, which libertarians advocate. Since you want more government, we suggest that you should try the worker’s paradise known as Zimbabwe. You will love it there.

It is not your country, because we have income tax, a large federal government, and massive spending on things like the military and social safety nets. Not all regulation is good, in fact a lot of it sucks and should be removed, but it was the regulated economy that produced our best economy and deregulation is what has lead to numerous collapses. So again, deal or get out.

“Not all regulation is good, in fact a lot of it sucks and should be removed”

Hey, how about that! You got a second issue correct.

“it was the regulated economy that produced our best economy”

No. Individuals innovating and pursuing their own best interests are very difficult to keep down in spite of the government’s best efforts. The US economy has grown despite the economic drag created by government.

“and deregulation is what has lead to numerous collapses.”

False. Fiscal, monetary, regulatory, and tax policies created perverse incentives that distorted the pricing system. Quit blaming people for government failures. It was a large federal government and massive federal spending of other people’s money, as well as loose monetary policy, government subsidies to housing, and regulatory policy encouraging loans to people who could not afford them that caused the last economic crisis.

The country’s founding principles are limited government and liberty. If you don’t like it, perhaps you ought to move to Cuba. They have “free” government health care. You will love it.

Again, you have no proof, I have shown that government has created masses amounts of wealth, in fact one agency alone has been the most successful in history and I can SHOW IT. Look at the products alone, just the products NASA has introduced into the private markets. And this is just a sample. https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/award_winners.html

All you have is Adam Smith and other theorists you create logic on paper that is supposed to answer ll the questions but never does in practice. Again, I am not a socialist, I am not for a state run economy and so things like a system with only free government health care do no work for me. You know why? Because I have examples, the cold war for instance. All your false’s come with nothing. Present something called evidence, or better yet, go try it out for yourself. Again, there are plenty of places where little no no government exists, where there are no taxes and no police. Have fun living those principles!!!

No. You have merely shown that government transferred wealth from taxpayers to others. You failed, however, to show that what government spent their money on was a better choice than what those individuals would have chosen to spend their money on.

All you have to do is look around you for the wealth that freer markets have brought the US. Now, look even at Europe, and you will see bigger government and more regulation. And, Europe is poorer than the US. But, to really see the effects of freer markets all one has to do is compare Hong Kong with China. Hong Kong is wealthy and prosperous. China recently relaxed government controls somewhat and it is much wealthier than it was when government control was greater.

There is no place where there is no government, no police, and no taxes. But, what reality shows us is that places like the US with less government and fewer taxes are much wealthier than those who have more government and greater taxes. And, that always requires more police and a police state.

Now, let us know when you move to your paradise in bigger government. Enjoy your lack of principles!

Yes I am suggesting that the computer industry would not have resulted had not government innovation lay the ground work. Alan Turing could never get his project off the ground in the private sector, the resources of NASA and a project like Tourings would take a bureaucratic private industry of the size and resources of a government to fund. And having worked for both massive private and government bureaucracies I did not see much of a difference as far as failures and waste go. The difference is the government is more willing to go after long term projects.

Then you would be wrong. Government just took money from some and gave it to others. It was individuals who created the computer industry. And, it was individuals in the private sector that brought the benefits of computers to individuals across the planet.

Uh, btw, bureaucracies are the most inefficient and ineffective ways to get anything done.

There is a huge difference between waste at a massive private bureaucracy and a government bureaucracy. With the private one, it is the shareholders who voluntarily invested their money who lose out. With government, it is taxpayers who involuntarily had their money taken from them by government who lose out. That is a huge difference.

And, you are wrong about business not pursuing long term projects. They do all the time. However, with government intervention in so many places, many cronies of politicians have found that it is easier to get government to take the risk while the crony reaps the benefit. “Heads I win and tails the taxpayer loses,” laughs the corrupt politicians and their political cronies.

I have worked for both, both have the same faults equally. It is your delusion that keeps you from seeing this. Look a state run economy will NEVER be as viable as a private one, but this idea that there should be no rules, that the economy should contain no regulations thus making it ‘free’ has long ago proved to be a laughing stock of an idea that insults reason and experience. Government works and I believe in my government, like he private sector it is not perfect and needs significant reform but I will always stand against you anarchists and it is incredibly hilarious that you take advantage of this country by living here but won’t go to the places where your ‘utopia’ already exists. Go fir it dude, go see what anarchy is like, where there is no pesky laws, no socialist institutions like the police and fire departments, go have fun with that and see how long it takes for someone to cut your balls off and feed it to you. FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

False. There is a huge difference between waste at a massive private bureaucracy and a government bureaucracy. With the private one, it is the shareholders who voluntarily invested their money who lose out. With government, it is taxpayers who involuntarily had their money taken from them by government who lose out. That is a huge difference.

“Look a state run economy will NEVER be as viable as a private one”

Hey, you got a third one right! Are you copying someone else’s work?

“but this idea that there should be no rules, that the economy should contain no regulations thus making it ‘free’”

Who said that? Ah, the straw man logical fallacy tell of cognitive dissonance. Please read “Libertarianism: A Primer” by David Boaz if you want to actually understand what you are talking about.

“Government works”

Lol! Yes. It works. Hahahaha.

“[Government] is not perfect and needs significant reform”

Yep. It needs to be limited.

“I will always stand against you anarchists”

Who is an anarchist? Ah, another straw man logical fallacy. The only question is do you not understand what you are talking about or are you just making stuff up. I am confident it is both.

“you take advantage of this country by living here”

Yep. And, I should. My people built this country and set it up with limited government and liberty. It is you believers in government planning who should move to some where you will be more comfortable. Perhaps South Africa. I hear government has “cured” the racial divide there.

“no socialist institutions like the police and fire departments”

Okay, now that is really stupid. Socialism is an economic system, not a police or fire department. Lol.

But, you should go for it, dude. You will enjoy government protecting you and providing you with “free” stuff. Send us a postcard from Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, or any of the much poorer (but caring! countries all throughout the world. With a little practical reality, you might actually come to realize that there is no safe space where government cares about you. Time to grow up.

BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA “Socialism is an economic system, not a police or fire department. Lol” Oh man thanks for the laugh indeed!!! Oh jesus christ you are a moron. Socialism is an economic AND political system you fucking idiot. One cannot exist without the other, you should know that butttttttttt you’re a ideological purist idiot. Look dude, the police is a system, where the means of production, distribution, and exchanges (with the public) are owned and regulated by the public. This is socialism defined. Go live in all the places in the world where that doesn’t exists and private forces hire their own ‘police’ and see how that works for you.

“socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done”

Like I said, Socialism is an economic system. But, thanks for the laugh.

Dude are you really that stupid? Look at your own definition, notice how it says economic AND political theories. Jesus dude, you can’t be this stupid, but here we are. Pure capitalist countries would NOT have PUBLIC police or fire departments yes, security would all be private. I am glad I live in a country where that is not the case. Seriously, do you even logic bro?

Merriam Webster’s definition supports that socialism is “an economic system.” You are the one saying it is not. You are saying any government function is socialism. It isn’t. Now that is stupid.

Apparently, you do not understand capitalism. Please start at the beginning with Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations.”

I think what you mean, though you write poorly, is anarchy. Then, there would be only privately owned police and fire departments. But, that was not the issue. The issue is whether there would be police and fire departments. But, nice try at the red herring logical fallacy.

Oh man this is good. Given a little sunlight and you idiot anarchists are exposed. I love it and get so much joy out of this. You think I am mad when I am smiling as I mock you and your idiocy. What makes it even more funny is that you are too much of a pussy to go move to a place where your anarchist vision is real, because you know you wouldn’t make it very long. You NEED the protection of my government while you bitch and complain about it. No greater irony, or joke is needed.

1. Denounce my government
2. Make disparaging statements about my government
3. Use philosophies without any real world example of success, jus bullshit magical logic on paper that is supposed to solve all human problems.

whipeeeeeee I mean why don’t we all just listen? Oh because it’s stupid, that’s why. And cursing? Who is being PC now hahahahahaahaha what a whiny little bitch, deregulation and freedom means I get to do what I want and you can’t claim that your precious feeewings being hurt means anything FREEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM to curse!!!!! And by freedom, I mean free speech. I can already tell that when faced with a free market you won’t do well and will get scared like a little punk. You can’t even handle a free market of ideas!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

No. It was’t. My point was that “taxes do not create wealth.” They don’t.

But, I love the name calling and cursing. They reveal an ignorant, angry little boy who needs a good spanking by mommy.

Time to grow up and act responsibly. Otherwise, you need to move to a bigger government country with detailed laws and a massive police force to ensure you act like a descent and intelligent human being.

Now, I know why you advocate bigger government. You need it. You are unfit to live in a civilized society, thus you have to have regimentation and control. Freedom of others scare you. But, most people are not like you. Now run off to your safe space.

Hahahaha oh man please keep this going. Freedom DOESN’T mean I get to do what I want? Oh god, I am sure no means yes to you and yes means what, anal? Freedom of others scare me? Your sensibilities get all messed up at cursing. Having a ‘free’ society means that freedom of expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free speech becomes inconvenient or unpleasant.

Please read “Libertarianism” A Primer” if you want to understand what you are unintelligently talking about. We all have natural rights. And, your natural rights end where the natural rights of others begin. Then learn some manners. Rational and intelligent people just think people who curse and name call do so simply because they do not have the ability to make logical arguments supported by evidence. And, you are the perfect case-in-point for why rational and intelligent people would make that conclusion.

No I have read Milton Friedman which is libertarianism and I don’t expect or hear about any significant difference but you can certainly enlighten me as to the difference between the two. I join Friedman, and Boaz’s Cato on the failures of he drug war and as to some other aspects of military sending and intervention but the whole idea itself is laughable. But lets get serious, no cursing just economic facts shall we?

The stunning growth of the American economy in the 19th century, that Friedman and Boaz love to point to had little to do with unregulated capitalism. My favorite exposure of this fallacy was done by Cambridge economist Ha Chang (real name), who showed that America was the most protectionist country in the world from 1830 up until World War II. In fact, as Chang layed out pretty clear in his book “Bad Samaritans” every industrialized economy on the planet grew astronomically by strictly regulating markets, government investment and the protectionism of key industries through nascent stages of development.

But there is a more fundamental flaw with your version of libertarianism or any version that relies on the concept of free will. Free will is a delusion, you don’t have it and no god gave it to you (how is that for irony). You are not the conscious author of your own thoughts and intentions you are a witness to them. I hate libertarians because they are ideological purists but they don’t take the time to understand what that ideology is based on. You just accept that free will will solve all, you have never looked into it scientifically.

In foreign policy, libertarians tend to follow a strict non-interventionist line, but they will allow business to do as it will. If you argument is that America should not force its beliefs on other peoples, why then would you allow corporations to form their own armies overseas as they surely would? And if you defend the rights of companies to sell their products without control or review, well what about the sale of nuclear weapons to foreign lands? it is only a few flaws of this magnitude that make this particular philosophy defunct of all reason.

As to domestic policy, libertarians think they have everyone on civil liberties. After all, no one stands more philosophically opposed to government discrimination no matter what a person’s religious, sexual, racial, or ethnic status than the libertarians right? Until you see libertarians oppose any legislation forcing the individual who is prejudiced against gay, black, hispanic, white et cetera, people and to employ them in a private business, rent or sell an apartment or house to them, or allow them into their establishment. Essentially libertarianism says anyone can marry or have sex (and how many are really prohibited from that today?) but if the owner of the corner store decides he hates “faggots” for whatever irrational reason he wants he can stop selling them loaves of bread. Don’t like Blacks? In the libertarian world, you set up your own school or bus company or mail service and announce that Black people’s letters will not be carried, their bodies not transported, their children not educated. I find that libertarians are hard-pressed to show that segregation would not be the inevitable result of this perfect free market economy. How about we compare the benefits of segregation–freedom to hate as one wishes–with its disadvantages? How about we grab some passing minority-group member by the elbow, and ask if he’d enjoy living in a system that guaranteed his political freedom, but allowed some rich white WASP to, say, exclude him from Harvard?

“Cambridge economist Ha Chang (real name), who showed that America was the most protectionist country in the world from 1830 up until World War II.”

You picked a poor economist. He is a well known socialist. BTW, it is Ha-Joon Chang. Douglas Irwin, a Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College and author of a 2011 study of the Smoot–Hawley tariff, wrote on the website of the Economic History Association:

“Chang only looks at countries that developed during the nineteenth century and a small number of the policies they pursued. He did not examine countries that failed to develop in the nineteenth century and see if they pursued the same heterodox policies only more intensively. This is a poor scientific and historical method. Suppose a doctor studied people with long lives and found that some smoked tobacco, but did not study people with shorter lives to see if smoking was even more prevalent. Any conclusions drawn only from the observed relationship would be quite misleading.”

It is something that I have noticed a lot about the left. A willingness to selectively take data points and then conclude that it proves their favored political ideology.

“Free will is a delusion, you don’t have it and no god gave it to you (how is that for irony). You are not the conscious author of your own thoughts and intentions you are a witness to them.”

No wonder the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution mean nothing to you. You obviously do not understand them. People have natural rights, and as the founders so wisely noted those natural rights are “self evident.”

“I hate libertarians because they are ideological purists but they don’t take the time to understand what that ideology is based on.”

Hatred and anger is something I noted about the left. And, it usually reveals that they do not understand what they are talking about. You obviously do not understand libertarianism. You keep confusing it with anarchy. Is your real name George Balella?

“it is only a few flaws of this magnitude that make this particular philosophy defunct of all reason.”

More disparaging statements. You know that is a “tell” of anger and cognitive dissonance, don’t you?

“Until you see libertarians oppose any legislation forcing the individual who is prejudiced against gay, black, hispanic, white et cetera, people and to employ them in a private business, rent or sell an apartment or house to them, or allow them into their establishment.”

Libertarians don’t believe in using government force to impose political values. So you are wrong with this too.

“Essentially libertarianism says anyone can marry or have sex (and how many are really prohibited from that today?) but if the owner of the corner store decides he hates “faggots” for whatever irrational reason he wants he can stop selling them loaves of bread.”

Why would you want to buy anything from anyone who hates you? I would just drive over to another grocery store to buy my loaf of bread.

“In the libertarian world, you set up your own school or bus company or mail service and announce that Black people’s letters will not be carried, their bodies not transported, their children not educated.”

No. People go into business to make money. They do not care about your race, color, religion, political views etc. They care that you can pay them. It is only when government is providing those services, can people use government to force businesses to segregate.

“I find that libertarians are hard-pressed to show that segregation would not be the inevitable result of this perfect free market economy.”

Why is that? Large scale segregation only works when government force is available to enforce it.

“How about we compare the benefits of segregation–freedom to hate as one wishes–with its disadvantages?”

How about we look at reality. Government historically was the force that allowed large scale segregation to thrive.

“How about we grab some passing minority-group member by the elbow, and ask if he’d enjoy living in a system that guaranteed his political freedom, but allowed some rich white WASP to, say, exclude him from Harvard?”

How about we grab some passing minority-groupl member by the elbow and ask if he’d enjoy living in a system where government police forces profiled him and targeted him for violence?

“Walmart has an army? Exxon? Facebook? Please. Don’t make stuff up.” Are you a fucking idiot? Read Smedely Butler you fucking dumbass, businesses have long been engaged in war and have long done it on their own without government help very sucessfully. United Fruit company employed their own armies when they couldn’t get the marines to do it and controlled entire foreign countries. You don’t know shit, you are a delusional fucking anarchist.

“No. People go into business to make money. They do not care about your race, color, religion, political views etc. They care that you can pay them.” Again, ALL sociological and racial history points to the opposite you FUCKING IDIOT. A racist doesn’t want to do business with a race he despises, a lot of bakers don’t want to do business with gay people no matter how much they pay them and they will even go to jail rather than sign off on marriage licenses. If what you say is true these issues would never have made it to the Supreme Court, here would never have been segregation at all. This is your fundamental problem and it is a problem shared with communists, your logic on paper ideology is not the cure all and it doesn’t apply to the real world. You’re a fucking joke.

Smedley is long dead and you are talking about ancient history. Incidentally, Smedley worked for the US government. Perhaps you should start thinking instead of emoting illogically.

“A racist doesn’t want to do business with a race he despises.”

Who would want to buy anything from a racist? They would probably spit into your baked goods anyway.

“a lot of bakers don’t want to do business with gay people no matter how much they pay them”

You don’t know bakers. They want the money. Silly ideology like yours and anger like yours do not result in successful bakeries.

“and they will even go to jail rather than sign off on marriage licenses.”

Uh, bakers do not issue marriage licenses. And, I believe that there are hundreds of counties that are issuing marriage licenses for gay people. You do know that government issues marriage licenses, don’t you?

“there would never have been segregation at all.”

Yep. If the state and local governments had not enacted laws that the Supreme Court thought for a long time were fine, there never would have been society wide segregation. Thanks, Government, for segregation!

“fucking”

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. But then, with your anger problem, you will never get the chance to find out wth a woman. So, you must be gay. And, there is nothing wrong with that.

“Uh, bakers do not issue marriage licenses. And, I believe that there are hundreds of counties that are issuing marriage licenses for gay people. You do know that government issues marriage licenses, don’t you?”

Your inept logic is as profound as it is hilarious. God you’re just a complete fucking moron with tunnel vision who see’s what he wants. Go back and read the point I was making SLOWWWWWWWLY you idiot.

“Smedley is long dead and you are talking about ancient history. Incidentally, Smedley worked for the US government. Perhaps you should start thinking instead of emoting illogically.”

Ever heard of a Banana Republic you FUCKING idiot? Private companies have long used mercenary armies to take over entire countries. Sometimes our government helped, a lot of times there was no government involvement at all. This still happens today quite frequently (predominately in Africa) and to say it doesn’t is obnoxiously stupid. Multinational mineral extraction companies like British Petroleum and Shell finance some of the bloodiest conflict zones around the world today in countries from Algeria to Zaire. Again, you are a moron incapable of understanding basic human motives and behavior.

This conversation makes my point about libertarians becoming so easily unmoored from reality. Governments did not come up with prejudice, it existed well before they came along. Government however has helped stem those prejudices into manageable living situations and this is well documented from both a sociological and biological standpoint, see Seven Pinker, The Better Angles of Our Nature. This obviously doesn’t mean big government intervention is a good thing. It is often bad. The drug war is a great example, there are so many cuts to government I have stated I would support. You acknowledge none of this and are having a conversation in your head with someone you think is a socialist or communist. Why would you tell me to move to Venezuela when I say OUR government needs to be cut. Oh that’s right, because you are a fucking idiot. Seriously. Fucking. Dumb.

But the bigger point is you see only a world where the sole metric is profit and where EVERYTHING is driven by the markets. To even the most basic human however, it is clear that there are other metrics to which people value and look at society. Religion is a big one, nationalism, race, et cetera, are others. To many, they believe some deity has commanded them to put other interests aside and put certain commands above all other, including money. This is why cases like Katzenbach existed. Prior to that case the country was more like the libertarian circle jerk you dream of, people could sell, or REFUSE to sell to anyone they wanted, and the government largely kept out of it. Lochnerism and so on. Total free will to run your business how you saw fit. So what happened? Many refused to sell to certain racial groups, or religious groups. It was clear that money was not the overall aim, if it was they would have sold to anybody. It was also clear this HURT commerce.

The only result of libertarianism is a more segregated society. And segregation imposes significant restrictions on the flow of goods and services. That is the ultimate travesty of fucking idiots like you who think they are supporting free flow of markets, you are actually ensuring their retardation.

One more: YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT. Hahahahaha man this conversation has been great. Kepp it coming dumbass.

Still having a conversation with yourself. Convinced I am a communist/socialist and that I am not who I say I am. Wow, just wow.

Look, jackoff, humanity progresses like evolution itself, independent of any singular human purposes (including profit motive you fucking idiot, again there are tons of other metrics people go through life by) yet completely dependent upon the environment in which they are formed. The role of government has always been to create stability, provide security, ameliorate harmful conditions, foster trust, and facilitate cooperation in achieving shared and complimentary goals. The idea that market forces alone, ALONE, will provide that environment is a joke. Especially when you consider that people believe they are commanded NOT to have shared and complimentary goals with huge swaths of the human population, such as non-believers, other different believers, or races, or nationalities. Your version would have everyone selling only to the group they identify with, believers would largely sell to only people who believe as they do (unless the customer hid it), to people of the same race, nationality, or other innocuous and stupid reasons. The inevitable result is greater expanse of segregation than we have even now. Once things like prejudice, and limited resources are no longer a concern, you vision would work. I think totally free market capitalism is the ideal system for space, where truly unlimited resources and yes, space exist. There would no longer be a competition over limited resources and when that occurs concepts like money would vanish, the currency would be intelligence and imagination. We are far off from that, but either now or in that future you bullshit makes no sense. I am not Greg G, I am not Muirdot motherfucker, I am the best sum bitch you have ever crossed. So eat penguin shit you ass spelunker and choke on the fact your bullshit is just that.

Your descriptions of me are as accurate as your libertarianism; totally made up bullshit that flies in the face of all evidence. Man this shit is so funny to engage in, it’s so cathartic exposing and destroying idiotic no government whimps like you that complain complain complain about government, but won’t do anything about it like moving to an area where your vision exists. The reason why you stick around to complain on internet blogs is that you are a whiny little bitch who knows he needs government protection. Hahahahaahahahaahahaha, how could I get mad at this or even let it affect my health? It helps so much.

Lol! You stupidly said that the police and fire departments were socialistic. I guess you are now capitalistic and do not want police and fire department services. Make up your mind instead of just making things up. Are you sure that your real name isn’t George Balella aka “Muirdiot”?

Finally in Tyler we have a debating partner for Greg Webb who can engage with him at his own special level of intelligence, originality, and enthusiasm. This is an ideal matchup for this type of food fight.

It is not a debate. He is debating in his own head. Looking at my government now, I would support a lot of cuts and pull backs. Most notably the drug war, the military budget, I could go on. All he hears though is something to the effect of: This person disagrees with me, therefore they are a communist and support every big government policy EVER. Yay, now I feel good about myself.

He is such a pussy though, there are places in the world that operate in the way he envisions. Next to no government, no taxes, no regulations, total ‘freedom’ to do whatever you want. So why doesn’t he move there? Because he is a little bitch that needs my government to protect him.

1. Angry? Nope this is hilarious to me and I am being more outlandish to ensure responses so my buddies blog catches more traction from you idiots.
2. Cursing? Jesus you little PC butch. Does my cursing hurt your poor whittle feewings? Again, free market? You can’t handle a free market of ideas hahahahahahahahaha.
3. Name calling, well yeah I’ll cop to this. You’re an idiot.
4. Really dude? I suppose agree to disagree, your fallacy is assuming that profit and the markets are the sole metric humanity needs, I couldn’t disagree more and so does all historical, biological, and sociological evidence.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Show me where I said this? I said that corporations have funded their own armies, still do, but so do GOVERNMENTS and I don’t hate government, so why, why would I have an intense hatred for corporations. Look jackoff, I am old enough to remember the cold war and watched how it fell. A state run economy is not as viable as a capitalist one. That argument is long over. I do not feel that human societies can build a ‘just’ civilization without private industry. I have said this above but you don’t pay attention to nuance, because again, you are a fucking idiot.
8. See 4.
9. I have cited economists, scholars like Steven Pinker, I have demonstrated the economic effect of NASA with proof. What have you offered? Oh yeah bullshit conjecture and speculation based on nothing more than your opinion. The fact you even put this down shows how much of an incompetent moron you are. You are literally having a conversation with yourself and it is hilarious to witness.
10. Oh jesus christ.

Hahahaha, still I am a socialist huh? The fact that I believe a sate run economy is bullshit and undesirable. That a capitalist economy is essential to a just society. That I feel, I’ll say this for the thousandth and one time, that our government now needs to be cut. Nope. All that means nothing to you. For you, if the person disagrees=socialist. Or probably more accurately you are having a conversation in your head against some make-believe person. It is probably a combination of both. hahahahahahahaha, you are a fucking idiot who can’t do anything but call people socialists, lefties, and communists. It’s made even more funny that you won’t go live the way you want, you’re a little whiny brat that wants to complain about where you live but too afraid to leave because you know you’ll get you shit handed to you. Go be free little bird, be free from big bad curse words! Hahahaahahaahahaha

Little minds have to curse. Professors of economics and law do not curse in their classrooms or during seminars or in intelligent discussions with others. But, small minds have to curse because they do not have a good argument.

Aww, the little socialist who quotes a socialist like Ha-Joon Chang now denies he is a socialist. In fact, he is quite the government cost cutter. Lol.

I used the argument from Chang, just one to point out a fallacy you are making. Your response was shit, and just accused me of being ‘left’ but just because I use a guy or gal’s argument doesn’t mean I subscribe to the ENTIRE philosophy. I agree with Boaz’s arguments on the drug war, doesn’t make me a libertarian. Your entire lens is your ideology, and honestly, I pity you. You miss out on so many of the nuances of life and so many other aspects and values that you will never give the time of day because as soon as you get a whiff of something ‘left’ or ‘socialist’ you will dismiss it. We all do that to some extent but I pity you that you are so far on one side of the spectrum. Again, if your ideas work so well, go live in places that employ them. There are PLENTY of places where there is no government, or very limited government exists, where no one will tell you who you can or cannot sell to, where there are no regulations at all on anything. Go ahead, try that out and lets see if everyone just magically cooperates. Have fun and good riddance!!!

Chang is a socialist who play games with data to achieve the results that he wanted. Douglas Irwin, Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College and author of a 2011 study of the Smoot–Hawley tariff, shot down Chang’s arguments with facts.

I’m am glad you agree with Boaz, but you have obviously not read him otherwise you would know that many of the things you said about libertarianism, especially confusing it with anarchy, are wrong.

There are not many places with no or limited government. This is the first country to try it and it is still the most important one out there. The progressive left tried to change that. So if you are with the progressive left, since you say you are not a socialist, then head on over the Venezuela, a land that Bernie Sanders loves.

And again, yes I believe my government needs to be cut, specifically in the drug war, on military spending, and a host of other areas. But I would also increase funding specifically for NASA. In fact I would like to take the DEA’s entire budget and give it to NASA. In no way would my increases though exceed what I would cut, so overall spending would go down if i had my personal way. But again, none of that matters to you, I used an argument by a socialist therefore I am and there is no room to classify me left, even if I use Boaz’s arguments on issues. You are a pathetic moron.

You use a pathetic argument by a socialist moron and then you name called, curse, acted like a complete jackass idiot just like many socialists do, and then you want to pretend you are a centrist. Lol. No. You are clearly on the left.

He may be a socialist but he is no moron, well socialism is moronic, okay you got me there. Hahahaha you can’t even handle a marketplace of ideas, much less a free economic market, no, you are not even a libertarian you’re a pathetic snowflake who’s feewings are hurt by bad whittle words, who is PC now you little bitch? Because yes you are a bitch, a pathetic bitch who likes to whine and complain about the size of government but won’t go live in places with less government. Go try it out, get your balls cut off in the name of freedom. Don’t worry, when your ransomed off my government won’t come save you, because, freedom bitch.

Hahahahaha, I assume this is aimed at me! How exactly am I a leftist? Jesus you jackoff libertarians just resort to that name call with anyone who disagrees with you. I’ll say it for the thousandth time, my personal view for the contemporary world is that the government needs a good cutting down, less spending, less intrusiveness into the personal lives of others. For further clarification i’ll say I buy wholly into John Stuart Mill’s distinction between self regarding acts (which may be personally destructive but harm no one else) and all other acts. Like Mill I believe the government has no business in the former. But I would even go further than Mill in that I would call gratuitous interference by ANYONE into the life of another is bigotry. There are places where I would like to see more funding NASA, for instance, but that hardly makes me a ‘leftist’. None of you forms an opinion based on anything but ideology and it’s rather pathetic.

It’s not the same thing. But I would gladly act this way in person to this idiot Greg. To reach the point I think you are making more accurately: Democracy and pluralism do indeed demand a certain commitment to good manners, but libertarianism is an ideology that makes very large claims for itself and can hardly demand that such claims be immune from criticism, or better yet, mockery and ridicule. Besides, it’s much too easy to see how open-ended such a self-governing system like libertarianism would have to be, and thus you would have to deal with this behavior, or even worse. If I, for example, were to declare myself insulted by Greg’s viewpoints of what my country should be (as indeed I am), I hope nobody would concede that such feelings don’t have any real world consequences. And that is EXACTLY my point, there are other metrics that take control of situations, the desire for profit is just one of many. But according to Greg, a disagreement on manners, or religion, or race, nationality, so on, would never stop someone from selling to me or having a business relationship if that relationship could make money, because all people care about is the market. Fuck manners, fuck all other interests, the magic market will ensure that all those interests will be wiped away and freedom and liberty will result. I am sorry, but such a few is too comical and too ridiculous not to be mocked.

He wasn’t acting anything close to polite, look at his first comment calling me PC and other charges. I strive to be better in my life and this is not a good showing for me, I’ll admit. But that’s me, you libertarians are so weird, you claim that nothing needs regulation, that the ‘invisible hand’ regulates all, so how on earth can you judge others on their behavior? Libertarians reflexively defend anything that is said or done purely on the basis that is represents a free choice. It is laughable that you choose ignore or dismiss the critical component of a civil society: judgment, and then try to tell me whether my behavior is ‘poor’. This is the position your ideology puts you in though.

I do not think that “politically correct” is anywhere near equivalent to “dumbass,” “idiotic,” “jackass,” or “bitch.” And, you did start with the “laugh test” comment. You really do look bad on this one.

Libertarians are not “weird,” especially on the issue of “taxes do not create wealth.” They don’t. They transfer wealth as Jon Murphy said.

“a disagreement on manners, or religion, or race, nationality, so on, would never stop someone from selling to me or having a business relationship if that relationship could make money, because all people care about is the market.”

Christians, Muslims, and Jews in Israel sell to each other frequently. Of course some refuse to do so. But, if you were a Jew, would you really want to buy a falafel from a Muslim who says he hates you? Or if you were a Muslim would you want to buy one from a Jew who says he hates you?

No Jim, many wouldn’t. That is my point, laissez faire leads to greater segregation, this is proven by history and biological/sociological facts. Freedom of any kind means the freedom to hate and there are a ton of people who feel they are commanded to discriminate against others for their race, nationality, or behavior, even harmless behavior like homosexuality. If you admit that such discrimination exists (I think we all have to) then I think you will be hard pressed to show that segregation would not be the inevitable result of this perfect free market economy. Of course it’s not a zero-sum game. People also wouldn’t care, but I don’t think those people make up the majority of this planet or this country.

Actually, Tyler, it is the opposite. Government imposed segregation. Jews, Muslims, and Christians all mingle together and think better of those in the other religions when they cooperate and interact through voluntary transactions that are in their mutual best interests.

“But according to Greg, a disagreement on manners, or religion, or race, nationality, so on, would never stop someone from selling to me or having a business relationship if that relationship could make money, because all people care about is the market. Fuck manners, fuck all other interests, the magic market will ensure that all those interests will be wiped away and freedom and liberty will result.”

I never said that. Billions of people cooperate each day in voluntary transactions with people of other religions, races, nationalities, etc. You do not have to like your fellow man to negotiate a transaction that is mutually advantageous. There are always some who won’t cooperate whether there a voluntary incentives or imposed force.

“Besides, it’s much too easy to see how open-ended such a self-governing system like libertarianism would have to be, and thus you would have to deal with this behavior, or even worse.”

It seems your issue is with the idea of libertarianism. And, that is an idea, based on your comments, you do not understand. I suggest you read “Libertarianism: A Primer” by David Boaz of the CATO Institute before continuing with your incorrect comments.

You fucking idiot, I have read it dumbass. I will call you a dumbass and a fucking idiot when you stop with that bullshit. Here is Boaz’s thesis “”the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others”, right? I GET IT YOU FUCKING TWAT. I happen to agree with ol Dave on matters like the drug war, and some, albeit a very small portion, of his views on foreign intervention. I have displayed more knowledge and given more direct evidence than you, all you have done is say, WRONG, read this book by this guy who says things, you haven’t even offered anything from it that is tangible, just speculation and conjecture. You’re a fucking idiot.

“No. People go into business to make money. They do not care about your race, color, religion, political views etc. They care that you can pay them. It is only when government is providing those services, can people use government to force businesses to segregate.”

Here IS WHERE YOU SAID THAT YOU FUCKING TWAT. You are as wrong as you are dishonest. According to you all people care about when running a business is money, maters like race, religion, political views, none of that matters anymore. This is laughable in the face of overwhelming evidence. Keep talking though dumbass, it gets more fun each time to expose your lying and ignorance.

Ah, apparently, your reading comprehension is poor. People do go into business to make money. The vast majority of those that do don’t care about your race, color, religion, political views, etc. They care only that you pay. Now, how does that correlate into this poorly written sentence?

“But according to Greg, a disagreement on manners, or religion, or race, nationality, so on, would never stop someone from selling to me or having a business relationship if that relationship could make money, because all people care about is the market. Fuck manners, fuck all other interests, the magic market will ensure that all those interests will be wiped away and freedom and liberty will result.”

If your sentence was true, then there would be very little commerce. Perhaps you ought to get out more and see some of those billions of voluntary transactions going on each day.

There is anti-discrimination commerce here because of *GASP* REGULATION you fucking idiot. Not all regulation is good, not all of it as bad, absolutism either way makes no sense, communism makes as much sense as libertarianism, they are just on opposite ends of the idiot spectrum. When you have freedom to hate and discriminate, as libertarianism and lochnerism fully allows, you have Jim Crow and concepts like separate but equal. The government didn’t create slavery or racial strife you fucking jackass, human faults did, and those faults (bias, ignorance, et cetera) still exist and would return in greater influence if left unchecked. This is what government has done, I have read Boaz, you read Steven Pinker, The Better Angles of Our Nature, government, more than any other factor, has lead to a decrease in violence and successfully curbed things like discrimination and prejudice. These are facts. Again, not perfect and government is in NO WAY the solution for everything or even MOST things (you won’t acknowledge that I said this sentence you fucking idiot) but neither should it be stripped down to nothing. There is a happy medium and I think the system works best when this medium is at constant tension.

And my answer to that you are incredibly wrong, taxes can create or destroy. They can create interstate highways systems and NASA which create massive amounts of private industry and wealth. NASA created the computer, the microchip, just that one fact alone disproves that entire statement.

And, my answer to you is that you are incredibly stupid or you are too politically correct to accept reality. Taxes just transfer wealth. It neither creates nor destroys wealth. Taxes transfer wealth from one to another.

And PC charge still, really, from the guy who has complained about bad whittle words and his feewings this whole time. You just throw charges and claims out like candy with no real understanding. God this is so satisfying to see your ignorance!

Tyler said, “NASA CREATED the computer, the microchip, just that one fact alone disproves that entire statement.”

Me: No. NASA did not CREATE the microchip. Texas Instruments did. From the article:

“On March 24, 1959, at the Institute of Radio Engineers’ annual trade show in the New York Coliseum, Texas Instruments, one of the nation’s leading electronics firms, introduced a new device that would change the world as profoundly as any invention of the 20th century—the solid integrated circuit, or, as it came to be called, the microchip.”

Tyler: ““It was government that created the large demand that facilitated mass production of the microchip.”

Me: Learn to read and comprehend. Texas Instruments CREATED the microchip. The federal government took a lot of wealth from other people to buy a lot of microchips from the company that CREATED it, Texas Instruments. You really are a moron.

Yep. Politically correct perfectly applies to you. You lied about NASA creating the microchip, then, instead of being honest and admitting you were wrong, you played games with words to feebly and stupidly try to give the government credit for the creation of the microchip instead of the private company called Texas Instruments. That is political correctness. You were not correct. So you lied to maintain your incorrect position. Moron.

Tyler said, “NASA CREATED the computer, the microchip, just that one fact alone disproves that entire statement.”

Since the article proves that Texas Instruments, not NASA, created the microchip, then you are wrong and I am right. Apparently, you are the “fucking idiot, Tyler” I would love to take credit for making you look like “fucking idiot,” but I did not. You did. All by yourself. With your stupid statement that “NASA created the computer, the microchip” NASA did not, you “little bitch.” And, taxes do not create wealth. Now take you whiny fat politically correct, but economically wrong ass and go hide in your safe space, moron. Adults have conversations here. They do not advocate politically correct, but wrong ideas and call other people silly names and stupidly curse when they do not have an argument.